JGGN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by a minor child, the Applicant, born in Australia to parents who were lawfully resident in Australia at the time of her birth. The dispute arose from the Minister's refusal of the application, primarily on the grounds that the Minister was not satisfied of the Applicant's identity and, consequently, her eligibility for citizenship under section 21(8) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The Applicant contended that both her parents were stateless, which would render her eligible for citizenship by conferral. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the Applicant met the eligibility criteria, specifically concerning the statelessness of her parents and the establishment of her own identity.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were: first, whether the Applicant's father, Mr HR, was a stateless person; second, whether the Applicant's mother, Ms SK, was a national or citizen of Myanmar or Bangladesh, or entitled to acquire such status; and third, the overall satisfaction of the Minister, and by extension the Tribunal, regarding the Applicant's identity and her parents' statelessness. The Tribunal considered the reliability of fingerprint evidence, the integrity of Malaysian immigration systems, the documentary evidence relating to Ms SK's identity and life story, and the legal definitions of "nationality," "citizenship," and "statelessness" within the context of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The Tribunal also had to assess the credibility of Ms SK's evidence, particularly in light of inconsistencies in her narrative and the conflicting evidence regarding fingerprint matching.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented by both parties. It critically assessed the fingerprint evidence, acknowledging the expertise of the Australian fingerprint specialist but also considering reports highlighting potential issues with latent fingerprint analysis and the documented integrity problems within Malaysia's immigration systems. The Tribunal found the marriage certificate of the Applicant's parents, dated 16 September 2011, to be authentic and concluded that it was implausible for Ms SK to have arrived at Kuala Lumpur Airport on the same day she was married. This led to a conflict: the fingerprint match suggested Ms SK was present at the airport on that date, but the marriage evidence indicated otherwise. The Tribunal ultimately found that the fingerprint evidence, particularly its provenance and the potential for error in the Malaysian system, was not sufficiently conclusive to override other evidence. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant was born in Australia and that her father was stateless. Crucially, after considering extensive evidence, including documentary proof of birth in Myanmar and Rohingya ethnicity, and noting the systemic denial of citizenship to Rohingya in Myanmar, the Tribunal concluded that Ms SK was not a national or citizen of Myanmar, nor was she entitled to acquire such status. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence that Ms SK was a national or citizen of Bangladesh, concluding that the Bangladeshi passport linked to her was likely false.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal determined that the Applicant was born in Australia to two stateless parents, thereby satisfying the requirements of subsection 21(8) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Minister for consideration, with a direction that the Applicant satisfies the eligibility requirements for a grant of Australian citizenship by conferral.